Verlander wins AL MVP

[revo]

There is too much inconsistency and the writer's criteria change with the wind. What about Steve Carlton losing to Johnny Bench? What about Ron Guidry? I don't think starting pitchers should win if historically others didn't. Verlander's 2011 was not far and away, no-questions-asked better than Carlton, Guidry or Pedro, but now in 2011 -- it's OK because Ellsbury and Bautista's team didn't make the playoffs?

Also, Ellsbury had 700+ plate appearances, 380 putouts without an error and made 91 plays outside of what is considered an average centerfielder's range. Ellsbury's 2011 is the best perfomance from a CF since Ken Griffey Jr. in 1997 -a season that ended with Griffey Jr. unanimously winning the AL MVP award.

Also, in 1997, Roger Clemens won 21 games with a 2.05 ERA, 292 strikeouts in 264 IP -- where did he finish in the AL MVP voting?

He finished 11th.

Who says pitchers never win the MVP? There have been 9 NL pitchers (8 SPs) and 13 AL pitchers (11 SPs) to win MVP over the years -- that's about 15% of the time.

Why should Steve Carlton win MVP if his team finished in the basement? His season was phenomenal, and as such he took the Cy, but very very few players have won on non-contending teams because of the definition among voters of the term "valuable."

Clemens finished 11th in '97 because his team was an also-ran --- yet Randy Myers finished 4th in both Cy Young and MVP voting.

You have to take the context of the season into play, and not just base it on stats.

[OaklandA's]

There is too much inconsistency and the writer's criteria change with the wind. What about Steve Carlton losing to Johnny Bench? What about Ron Guidry? I don't think starting pitchers should win if historically others didn't. Verlander's 2011 was not far and away, no-questions-asked better than Carlton, Guidry or Pedro, but now in 2011 -- it's OK because Ellsbury and Bautista's team didn't make the playoffs?

Also, Ellsbury had 700+ plate appearances, 380 putouts without an error and made 91 plays outside of what is considered an average centerfielder's range. Ellsbury's 2011 is the best perfomance from a CF since Ken Griffey Jr. in 1997 -a season that ended with Griffey Jr. unanimously winning the AL MVP award.

Also, in 1997, Roger Clemens won 21 games with a 2.05 ERA, 292 strikeouts in 264 IP -- where did he finish in the AL MVP voting?

He finished 11th.

First, just because mistakes were made in the past doesn't mean that we should continue to make them. Certainly we have better access to information now, so we can make more informed decisions.

Second, to pick an MVP in 2011, I don't think what Carlton did in 1972 or Clemens did in 1997 is relevant. What matters is how Verlander compares to his competition in 2011. Verlander's MVP doesn't mean he was better than Pedro in 2000; it just means that he was more valuable than everyone else in 2011.

[DJBeasties]

But he was not MORE valuable than the others. There is no empirical proof that he was. It's just how the windsock flies this year. My problem isn't a pitcher winning it per se, it's that the criteria constantly shifts and the accountabilty is non-existent.

[Judge Jude]

"Why should Steve Carlton win MVP if his team finished in the basement? His season was phenomenal, and as such he took the Cy, but very very few players have won on non-contending teams because of the definition among voters of the term "valuable." "

By the same definition, wouldn't it be pointless to pick a player as MVP if his team won the division by 20 games? Obviously they would have won anyway without him, so how "valuable" can we say any players on that team were?

Unless you don't want to penalize a player based on who his teammates are, in which case....

[virgonomic]

I agree with this. I went to a Tigers game in August and looking at their lineup I asked "how the hell are they running away with the division?" Then I remembered they had JV going every 5 days. Also, they play in the AL Central, but still.

[revo]

By the same definition, wouldn't it be pointless to pick a player as MVP if his team won the division by 20 games? Obviously they would have won anyway without him, so how "valuable" can we say any players on that team were?

And when a team runs away with it, what happens, JJ? The team usually has multiple "valuable players" and they split the vote. So exactly -- those teams don't get MVP winners either.

The '98 Yanks won by 22 games, yet Jeter finished 3rd and Bernie 7th. The '99 Indians won by 21.5 games, yet Manny & Alomar finished 3rd & 4th. The '08 Angels won by 21.5 games, the best they could do was 6th & 16th.

[Judge Jude]

Revo - yes, that's how it often works out.

But if Jeter hit an extra 30 HR that year and the Yankees won it by 28 games instead, he would have been chosen MVP even though the Yankees didn't need him at all - so how "valuable" would he have been, per your Carlton comment?

[revo]

Revo - yes, that's how it often works out.

But if Jeter hit an extra 30 HR that year and the Yankees won it by 28 games instead, he would have been chosen MVP even though the Yankees didn't need him at all - so how "valuable" would he have been, per your Carlton comment?

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make. If this was Excel, this would be a circular reference error.

In '03, the Giants won the NL West by 15.5 games. If they didn't have Barry Bonds, would they have won the division? Doubtful.

If in your pseudo-world the '98 Jeter hits 50 HRs and the Yankees win by 28 games, there isn't any question he would have won the MVP Award. Because if he were to be replaced by a .260, 5 HR SS, chances are they win the division, but probably by much, much less. And then other Yankee players would have looked more valuable to voters and received more votes, but still would not have won.

You're a baseball historian. How many MVP Awards have been given to players on teams that were never in the race? Very few. So isn't the fact voters consider overall team performance a huge factor? Of course it is.

As Branch Rickey once said, "We can finish last with you, we can finish last without you."

[Judge Jude]

Might be another thread where I think only 5 MVPs played on winning teams (Ernie Banks twice).

I just don't get why a player who dominates for a bad team is irrelevant because his teammates suck, but you can win an MVP on a team when you are irrelevant because your team is so good.

I love the Bonds one, actually. It's 15.5 games, and Bonds is a Ruth-ian figure that year.
Do they win it without him?

Jason Schmidt was phenomenal that year and Jerome Williams had a strong half-season, and the bullpen was outstanding with Tim Worrell as closer and Joe Nathan 12-4 in a setup role. But the best OPS+ after Bonds was J.T. Snow's 112 (with his spectacular 1B defense, he could make that work).

I would not want to say that anyone was indispensible for a team that wins by more than 15 games, but I think he was that rare exception...

[ironfist]

I too find it odd that even if a player has a phenomenal season, that since his team was lousy, his performance had no "value". I guess everyone has their own definitions of the word, but think of it this way, maybe: Wins are a sum of all the values of the players on a team - maybe win shares might be a good stat to gauge value. Every player has some value, but a player on a good team is surrounded by more high-value players in theory.

[Long John]

Someone else had mentioned (and I think this was in the NL MVP thread) that there should be two separate awards - One for best season by a position player and one for MVP. First, position players can't win the Cy Young - just ask Jose Canseco. Second, there is clearly a monumental difference between the Most Valuable Player and the best season by a position player. Third, I'm specifically not using the word "hitter" because defense and intangibles should absolutely be considered in the process. But the fact that the team did a better or worse job of surrounding Star 'A' with Star 'B' and other better talent is more of a reflection of the job the GM and the scouting department does than the job the player did on the field.

I can see why Verlander won, but, in my mind, he doesn't deserve to be the AL MVP. Sure the Red Sox didn't make the playoffs, but frankly the Red Sox don't even come close to making it a race without Ellsbury. Everyone else on that team fell apart, through slump or injury, at some point during the year except for him. Given his statistical season, his incredible defensive value and his value to his team, I think he's the runaway MVP. Would the Tigers have runaway with the AL Central without Verlander? Probably not, but they probably still would have won the division.

To break down the Verlander case further, let's look at the Tigers record. First, they were the only team with a winning record in the AL Central this year (the Tribe finished second at 80-82). The Tigers record broken down by division is as follows:
AL East - 20-16
AL West - 18-18
NL - 7-11
AL Central - 50-22

Of Verlander's 24-5 record, he was 14-1 against the AL Central in 15 starts. For those of you doing the math at home, that's a 10-4 record in 19 starts against everyone else.
Verlander's starts against NL teams this year - Arizona (the only team with a winning record and he got them at home), Colorado and the Mets. He went 3-0, allowing 2 earned runs in 24 IPs.
So now, against the AL East and West, he went 7-4 in 16 starts - not exactly MVP numbers.
All 5 of his no decisions were against the AL East (2 Yanks, Boston, Tampa, Baltimore).
All 4 of his other losses were against the AL West (2 road, 2 home and one loss against each AL West team).
Beating up on weak opponents doesn't make you the MVP (although in this case, apparently, it does). I realize Verlander doesn't make or control the schedule, but even if you replace Verlander with a league average pitcher, the Tigers probably still win the division. Better question - would another pitcher of his caliber have done as well in that position? Absolutely.

How can this guy be the MVP?

[Erik]

Someone else had mentioned (and I think this was in the NL MVP thread) that there should be two separate awards - One for best season by a position player and one for MVP.

That would make sense.

The NFL has something like that in place. There is MVP, then there is Offensive Player of the Year and Defensive Player of the Year. MVP and Offensive Player of the Year are often not the same person.

[cool hand]

it's fun listening to stat geeks (and i use that term with great affection) break down numbers in favor of their arguments. reminds me of political partisanship - you can argue whatever point you wish if you bend the stats to your bidding. this argument of JV's competition not being good enough for him to be given credit for dominating - and winning pitching's triple crown - is laughable. i've half a mind to go back and break down the number of HR/RBI carl yastrzemski had against 4th & 5th starters from bad teams in '67, to show that he shouldnt REALLY have been credited with HIS triple crown.

fortunately, baseball's postseason hardware are not awarded SOLELY by statistical breakdowns. subjectivity is part of what makes these arguments fun. arguing whether or not a pitcher "deserves" the award in the first place is legitimate and should be discussed. otherwise you might as well write an algorithm of criteria and let a computer spit it out (hello, BCS!).

but saying that his triple crown and overall dominance is de-legitimized because of the division that he played in is just silly. is there no end to coastal bias?? even stat geeks dont (seldom?) go so far as to break down WHO the stats were earned against. does his no-hitter "count", or are the blue jays not good enough competition?? 50 HRs is 50 HRs. 250Ks is 250Ks. nobody cares if 4 of your HRs were hit off of aj. burnett.

the breakdown argument above does a fair job of illustrating that the tigers won their division specifically by beating up ON their division. and that nobody did this better than JV. a nice supporting argument beyond the triple crown itself. thanks.

(incidentally - i won my league (for the 4th time this century!) by a wide margin in large part because of mr. ellsbury. now, if there's a vote somewhere for ROTO MVP - i'll vote jacoby - twice! but in the "real world", i'll take JV.)

just ONE man's opinion...